Today, it’s the case in Yemen where the U.S. and France are helping Saudi Arabia in its massive air war against Houthi Shi‘ites. And it’s the case in Syria, the scene of the most destructive war game of them all, where Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states are channeling money and arms to Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh), and similar forces with the full knowledge of the U.S.

Western leaders encourage this violence yet decry it in virtually the same breath. In April 2008, a Treasury official testified in a congressional hearing that “Saudi Arabia today remains the location from which more money is going to … Sunni terror groups and the Taliban than from any other place in the world.” [See Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Their Oil Is Thicker Than Our Blood,” in in Sarah N. Stern, ed., Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 127.]

Latin America: In such a terrorist reality, what could Venezuela expect from the USA?Tuesday, November 01 @ 23:11:24 UTC

By Franz J.T. Lee

A recent excellent VHeadline publication merits some urgent comments. The reporters write: "Venezuela is an oil-rich nation, so there are no prizes for guessing why the US might invade the country -- just make up whatever excuse you like this time. Of course, the US government has denied any such plans, and even loony television evangelist (pardon the tautology), Pat Robertson, was forced to apologize for suggesting the US should just assassinate Chavez, thereby saving the cost of an invasion."http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=46612

Firstly, Venezuela is not facing a possible United States "Trojan" military invasion because of the courtship of her stunning beauties ... for example, of Irene Saez, Mari Pili Hernandez or another Latin American "Helen."

World Focus: Who are the Real Terrorists?Saturday, September 17 @ 05:56:28 UTC

The following is the text of a controversial speech by Mahathir Mohamad at Suhakam's Human Rights Conference on 09/09/05.

By Mahathir Mohamad

I would like to thank Suhakam for this honour to address you on a subject that you have more knowledge and experience than I do.

You are concerned with human rights or hak asasi manusia. And it is only right that as a civilised society and nation we should all be concerned with human rights in our country and in fact in the world.

But human rights should be upheld because they can contribute to a better quality of life. To kill 100,000 people because you suspect that the human rights of a few have been denied seem to be a contradiction. Yet the fanaticism of the champions of human rights have led to more people being deprived of their rights and many their lives than the number saved. It seems to me that we have lost our sense of proportion.

As the red wheel of Operation Iraqi FUBAR continues to roll, spewing hundreds of corpses in its wake, it becomes clearer by the hour that there is only one way for America to end this stomach-churning nightmare it has created: Get out.

That's it. The occupying armies -- including the 15,000 corporate mercenaries -- should leave now. They should never have been sent in the first place on this ghoul's errand, this war of aggression, this mission of murder and plunder -- the perversion of every enlightened value of the civilization that the coalition's "Christian leaders" purport to defend.

LONDON - A strong case arguing the illegality of the invasion of Iraq will be handed soon to the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

The report prepared by eight leading international lawyers and professors of law drawn from four countries makes a strong case against the illegality of the way British and U.S. troops fought the war.

The professors came together for the study within an independent group Peacerights. The study was funded largely by shows done last year by British comedian Mark Thomas in a campaign he called White Ribbon.

Well, if you're going to war, obviously troops are going to a theater and to a country and in the immediate aftermath of such a conflict, there would have to be a need for some presence until such time as you can put in place a better system. I mean, the United States has done this many times in the course of the last 50 or 60 years and we always try to get out as quickly as we can once we have reestablished peace, put in place a stable system, it is never our intention to go and stay in a place and to impose our will by the presence of our military forces.

Those guiding Bush/neo-conservative foreign policy intend to establish a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq. This little-noted aim, not "oil," is the real "elephant" in the American voter's living room.

One of the major but not surprising bed-fellows of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is the callous, symbiotic collusion between the Bush administration and U.S. corporate greed--a classic case of massive, private profitability shrouded in a slick scam of public hypocrisy.

Now that the military combat phase is over, one must zero in on the fact that even before the war had begun, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had already asked for bids on contracts that would go to rebuild Iraq before the war. Usually the USAID has open bidding for contracts like these but this Operation was a clear, overt exception.

This exception was carried out in the name of national and homeland security by the Bush administration.

As shovels scoop the shredded viscera of cold collaterals in Baghdad, and brisk hoses scour the blood from market stalls and children's bedrooms -- festive preparations to make ready for the enthronement of the new lords of Babylon -- we cast an anxious gaze beyond the barbed steel of the security perimeter, to a column of troops and ordnance rumbling toward the horizon. Whither are they bound? Who's next to feel the mailed fist of liberation?

At the moment, all signs point to Syria. Iran, of course, would be a more glittering prize -- not to mention a more remunerative one for the unholy trinity of Oil, Arms and Construction, whose mephitic spirit broods over the rising American Empire. But Iran is a big beast; first Iraq must be chewed, swallowed and digested before there is sufficient room in the imperial gut -- and sufficient loot in the imperial treasury -- for another sumptuous banquet.

U.S. military conducts forcible censorship of Arab and other media outlets

Reports from the Arab world indicate that anti-Americanism has reached unprecedented levels in the wake of Tuesday's bombing of Arab TV networks. Al Jazeera immediately claimed that the reason both they and the Abu Dhabi TV news network were targeted was to stifle any voice reporting on the invasion of Iraq from an uncontrolled perspective.

Arab analysts immediately took to the airwaves condemning the attacks and warning the Arab community that the Anglo-American coalition forces are about to commit atrocities in Iraq, far from the watchful eyes of Arab media. Al Jazeera media analysts have claimed that only embedded journalists are allowed safe haven and security. Both Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV are now pleading with U.S. forces for safe passage out of Iraq.

The existing circumstances and environment generally provide the stimulus for political and moral theorisation. While in the process of clarifying the notions upon which the whole structure of thoughts is to be based, a thinker gives a careful consideration to the decomposition of the political, religious and social institutions of the past societies on one hand, and the gradual deterioration and degeneration of the contemporary societies on the other. Such considerations are often reflected in their writings. A religious political thinker St Thomas Aquinas who enjoyed tremendous respect within the Christendom outlined the concept of 'Just War' highlighting the conditions that differentiate a just war from that of an unjust war. The basic purpose of this short piece is to highlight the basic tenets of the theory of just war and testing the American driven Iraq war.

St. Thomas Aquinas lays down three conditions for a just war. First of these conditions is the legitimate authority of the ruler by whose command the war is to begin. Given the existing American political system, the war is to be declared by the President with the consent of its legislature. As the legitimate ruler is entrusted with the tasks of looking after the welfare of the society and to declare war if the need arises though a constitutional procedure has to be followed. Second, the war must be declared for a just cause. The legitimate authority must have a just cause for waging a war. Finally, the war should be waged with rightful intentions. It should be waged for the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil.

Claims and counter-claims as off-the-record briefings add to confusion

In a week during which an apparent "operational pause" by coalition forces was replaced by sweeping advances right to the outskirts of Baghdad, it has been as difficult as ever to discern hard fact from the fog of war.

As the military campaign has increased in tempo, so has the propaganda battle. The reluctance of US and British commanders to divulge information has led to an increase in the off-the-record spinning of stories by anonymous sources. Public statements by political leaders in both London and Washington have served more to blur the picture than to clarify it.

As a result, a number of the key developments reported this week leave many questions unanswered.

It's hard to believe that a little more than one week ago, the Iraqi regime, facing imminent attack, was meekly dismantling its al-Samoud missiles, presenting scientists for interview, and allowing hundreds of air strikes to deplete its forces without reply. US oil, 'defence' and other state-corporate interests had of course long since chosen war. Or, rather, they had chosen a "cake walk" - a parade of the best firepower money can buy, a travelling arms fair ensuring that the latest killing machines would be suitably 'combat tested'. US generals talked of "flexibility and responsiveness", British generals of "niche combat roles". This sounded disturbingly like the Total Quality jargon of management consultancy.

And now a giant snake of military equipment lies caked in dust, bruised and battered, its body wallowing in the blood of innocents. Suddenly Stalingrad feels like something that happened only sixty years ago. There is a palpable sense of the ghosts of ancient wars looking down grimly on a humbled leviathan. It's an old story: supply lines overstretched by overconfidence, state of the art power shaken by 'little people' who weren't supposed to matter, people who haven't read the script. Suddenly war seems about blood and courage again, not computers.

Two British soldiers lie dead on a Basra roadway, a small Iraqi girl – victim of an Anglo American air strike – is brought to hospital with her intestines spilling out of her stomach, a terribly wounded woman screams in agony as doctors try to take off her black dress.

An Iraqi general, surrounded by hundreds of his armed troops, stands in central Basra and announces that Iraq's second city remains firmly in Iraqi hands. The unedited al-Jazeera videotape – filmed over the past 36 hours and newly arrived in Baghdad – is raw, painful, devastating.

It is also proof that Basra – reportedly "captured" and "secured" by British troops last week – is indeed under the control of Saddam Hussein's forces. Despite claims by British officers that some form of uprising has broken out in Basra, cars and buses continue to move through the streets while Iraqis queue patiently for gas bottles as they are unloaded from a government truck.

War and Terror: Desert Storms: A Battlefield from HellWednesday, March 26 @ 19:25:53 UTC

By BRUCE JACKSON

Winds in the Iraqi desert sandstorm have been blowing fifty miles and hour, bending date palms so their branches scrape the ground, reducing visibility to a few meters, rendering many weapons inoperable until the sand can be unpacked from barrels, chambers and sighting mechanisms. "It was biblical," a U.S. army colonel from Texas told a reporter. Were it not for digital cameras we'd have hardly any images at all because sand like this destroys film cameras. Rain fell yesterday, but it was mud falling from the sky, making everything worse rather than better. The temperature in the desert approached 100 degrees. If there is a battlefield from hell that is it.

War and Terror: 'Shock And Awe' Fizzles In The Face of Ingenuity and A Will To FightWednesday, March 26 @ 12:25:39 UTC

by Ben Roberts

This was supposed to be an impressive war like none the world had ever seen.
Military jocks in the know, Middle East 'experts,' and familiar news anchors were
all seen in an endless TV parade smugly telling us of 'the impressive technology,'
'the mother of all bombs,' 'rendering the Iraqi military deaf and blind,' and a 'lethal
air and light show that was unprecedented in history.' In other words a Fourth of
July fireworks display that would leave the world and Iraq in a state of shock and
awe, giving the victim no choice but to promptly throw in the towel and utter the
famous words, 'No mas.' Don't get me wrong, the opening bell was impressive
with cruise missiles streaking in from varied US Navy ships in the Red Sea with
flight times of over an hour. Another volley of missiles came from warships in the
Gulf, with half hour flight times. This was complemented with a silent-as-the-Grim
Reaper F-117A Stealth bomber swooping in to drop its twin bomb load, in what
was described as a 'decapitation' operation against the Iraqi leadership, (try
explaining that term to your children where your leaders deliberately try to
violently assassinate the leadership of another country and call it such a nice and
wonderful phrase). The synchronicity was impressive with the target being hit
simultaneously without missing a beat. Awesome technology. One small problem
though. The intended targets are still horizontal. It has been downhill from then.